Some artists are disappearing from society to let their work speak for itself
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
But it does a reasonable job of avoiding these traps. The quote about artist David Hammons sums it up nicely "he is simply too private to talk about where his work comes from, that doing so would feel like a bodily violation.'
Like many artists before and since he is indirectly saying that he doesn't know why or how his work is created, or what it really means, because if he did he would be a critic or curator, not an artist. He is putting artwork into the world, not anything else.
His work is highly sought out because he is as elusive as a public artist can be, giving him an allure and a sense of mystique. Whereas his predecessors were often starving artists, who often fall victim to alcohol/drug abuse, whose work is seldom appreciated until they die. Lest they 'made it' and were ordained by Church or State, that is.
I'd say beyond just artistic freedom, it also seems to give them a monetary incentive to operate this way.
I don't know enough about the Art World to comment on the works themselves, but given the amount of talent seen on just deviant art since its inception, I hope most follow this model and we can see more artists get recognized for their work.
This does remind me of a series I saw that was quite moving on the BBC that I wish they'd reboot on modern artists, its called the Power of Art:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QwQ2kUQDnY
Sidenote: That's my favorite episode (Jacques-Louis David) of the series, and its worth the entire watch: but @41:14 onward it shows what Art and Artists is often reduced to when control rests in the hands of the aforementioned 'dignitaries.'
If disappearing and being elusive is the criterion I pick Bill Waterson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Watterson#After_Calvin_an...
For one, it's distinctive and iconic.
Second, in 2020, it still has an element of social commentary, whereas most "modern art" is abstract BS.
Third, it's not academic wordy social commentary (like some other art aspires to), but something plain folks can appreciate.
So, lots to like.
Also he's more of an unusual case because of his fluent use of the social media combined with the anonymity. Without social media he wouldn't be as influential as he is today.
Also he probably didn't start out thinking "Alright I'm gonna become an artist and make tons of money with my art!", he probably started doing it for his own personal pleasure, and it just took off. If someone were to start out with the goal of making money as artist, a graffiti artist would be the last on his mind. He was probably either financially independent already, or had a real job and was doing graffiti as a "side project" when he started out.
You say that, but Ludo is a well known artist who took to street art to enhance his profile and has had large commissions in public places, magazines and concerts and live events.
http://thisisludo.com/category/news/
I don't think Banksy's model is the only way, but it has worked well for him given his approach for social critiques and the mystique is just his form of branding to create exclusivity to his work(s). He even admits to Blek Le Rat's work being comprable, if not better, to his own in the quote above.
Well, sometimes. At other times it is just a snack.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6269261/banana-art-taped-to-wall-...
Am I blind? Is there something wrong with me?
Joking aside it's the same with architecture. Horrific demoralising modernist/post-modern abortions that are forced on the general public against their wishes, who, when they are asked, say they prefer traditional architecture.
Speculate away as to why this hideous crap is forced on us by metropolitan trendies.
This is the building they demolished for the project:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Te...
It is still lauded by some as a masterpiece, which either means that I have zero architectural understanding, or that they are using different metrics to measure architectural quality.
The Dom-Römer-Project was and is a huge success. For me, the lesson is that if you want to avoid architectural controversies outside the world of renowned architects (meaning if you want to general population to like a building), build traditional. It's as simple as that.
Another thing I really like about the Dom-Römer-Project was the enthusiasm of the people who build it. It makes a huge difference if you are a carpenter and you are just inserting pre-made doors into a modern building, or if you have to actually build a classic timber frame [1], which you might only heard of during your apprenticeship.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom-R%C3%B6mer_Project
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Ha...
Lots of aesthetics is to do with prediction and surprise, and if you don't have the 'perceptual training' you won't be able to make much sense of the art or architecture which defies your expectations.
IANAA but I imagine the "Technisches Rathaus" building is supposed to be a bit like what's supposed to go on inside a technical academy - scientific reductionism or abstraction. The design exposes the 'idea' of the components of the building (the steel poles, obvious floor layout, bringing up the 'foundations' to ground level) and abstracts away the typically visceral particulars (receding the windows, using only design-relevant adornment).
I think there are plenty of interesting buildings that look absolutely disgusting in context, but which I'd probably enjoy and be able to 'see' properly if they were grouped together in their own little town somewhere, because I'm not in a mode where I expect to see traditional architecture.
At the same time, if I never see those buildings, how am I to know what novel aesthetics I'm missing out on?
It reminds me of the estate my parents live on with mock Tudor windows and beams. It's just as hideous as your first image.
It is possible to build attractive and liveable yet modern buildings.
There was an artist in the '90's that did a short questionnaire asking people their preferences for certain types of art. The artist then created one painting representing what everyone wanted in a painting, it was a cabin in the woods. They also painted one representing what people didn't like, it was a geometric modern-style painting.
Art "works" for you if it makes you feel something. That's all. It can be joy, melancholy, curiosity or it might even be repulsive to you.
Do you like The Big Lebowski? I remember seeing this question on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/f5hvt/what_do_so... -- the person wants to understand it. But to me like many, I am sure, it's clear that there is not really something deep to understand. Either you enjoy it as a funny movie, or it does nothing for you.
The type of art that most of us appreciate without trying to "understand" is music. It can evoke a spectrum of feelings and a lot of it just doesn't. Most people don't have issues with this the way they do with "modern art". So if you see an abstract painting and you feel nothing, probably just let it go. Don't try and decipher it.
That's hard thing to say, I mean graffiti has been a cultural ingrained thing in popular media since at least the 80s. Its competitive subculture took to 'bombing' as turf wars and one-uping for street cred since I was a kid in the 90s.
And then you look at places like Berlin, London or Bristol all with DEEP underground music cultures and its hard to envision a time without that street art.
With that said, I wish I had spent more time in Modena, I only had 1/2 a day off when I lived there, as one of the things I really enjoyed doing with my gf at the time was go look for these type of murals in the back alleys and abandoned buildings.
Here are some examples of the those that I saw while out for aperativo and a stroll around town
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=modena+street+art&t=lm&iax=images&...
It's a lot sketchier during the night, which is normally when we were off, but it was like an Easter Egg hunt (on a bike) I used to do for first time guests in my hometown where large Surf or Ocean based murals were commissioned by local artists and sanctioned by the municipality and local business owners, they served as cultural icons all throughout out town--many of them were actually not easily visible unless you actually went looking for them.
> satoshi
Funny, you should mention that; several Bitcoin street artists have actually been paid by observers in Bitcoin for their art throughout the years, here is just one example:
https://bitcoinist.com/street-artistincorporating-bitcoin-qr...
I'm sure this is how a Banksy should actually be validated, rather than being a 'social status' vanity piece hanging in someones living room.
First, what you call "real", obviously because you don't understand or like the other two, is popular art. The defining characteristic is that it can be enjoyed directly without much context or explanation.
The second is, well let's call it academic art. It's not actually confined to universities, but the defining feature is that it is at least partially based on thinking about art, and usually challenges some of the unspoken assumptions underpinning popular art and often requires context to understand. Museums show this kind of art.
The third is the "art scene". The defining characteristic is that it's driven by collectors willing to sometimes pay outrageous prices for various reasons. Galleries and dealers mostly cater to this world, and this is where "star artists" are born.
- The emperors' new clothes: liking it makes you look sophisticated, disliking it exposes you to mockery (as someone inferior that doesn't get it). it also allows people to feel that they are better than the out-group ( and being evil while feeling good about is appealing to humans). These social dynamics need not be conscious decisions.
- These social dynamics can be exploited by third parties to suit their own ideology. Propaganda is powerful.and it was used as a CIA weapon: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...
- financial incentives: if I pay a higher price for an art piece. my collection from the same artist will appreciate in value. In addition, it can be used as a mean for money laundering and for tunneling money for illegal purposes. therefore the value of a piece need not match it's artistic merit.
As a precursor another couple of useful misconceptions to discard:
4. Art must be beautiful, or crafted, or at least 'good'. 5. Art has to have meaning.
It's useful to look at the early part of the 20th Century to understand modern art.
A good painting to start this conversation is The Treachery of Images by Magritte[1] from 1929.
On one level it is a simple, acceptable painting of a pipe, with the handwritten label in the painting "This is not a pipe".
What is that label doing? It is in some ways telling the truth, this is not a pipe, it is a painting of a pipe. Already we have opened a useful void between object and reality.
It is also creating a tension in the painting that was not there before. We have an obvious pipe, and we have a counterclaim immediately following. But both the painting of the pipe and the label disclaiming its pipeness are 'true' in that they were put there by the artist and they are unambiguous in their own right.
So the pairing creates an ambiguity that is difficult to resolve. What does the label mean? Do I understand it properly? Is one true and not the other, if so which? What is the sum total of them both? How am I meant to 'read' this, whatever is meant by 'reading'.
Many questions emerge, inhabiting a place outside the painting, in the mind of the viewer. Are these questions part of the artwork? Where does the artwork start and stop? Is my reaction part of it? Why couldn't it just say "This is a pipe"? Is this treachery of some kind? (hence the title of the work).
Once you have seen that this is something a little different to a 'normal' painting, that it in some way occupies a broader space than simply the dimensions of the physical object, then the door of modern art is ajar and cannot be closed again.
By whose authority can these conceptions be labelled as misconceptions? If art is neither beautiful nor crafted or good in any way, and also has no meaning, it can be argued that it also has no intrinsic value.
In that case it is merely an object that is meant to inspire pompous rambling, but so can any object if put on display for the right observers, like in an art exhibit.
All 3 can be violated and art can still have value.
Playful art might not have any meaning (and surely not any "deep meaning") but still be totally enjoyable (e.g. Louie Louie in rock terms).
Badly done/naive art might be perfectly meaningful and touching on the other hand.
Not beautiful looking art can also be very meaningful and touching. We don't just enjoy beauty, we can appreciate e.g. a terrible picture from a war even if it's not beautiful.
If it doesn't have any of those attributes? Beautiful, well crafted, meaningful? Well, it can still be perfectly enjoyable. There's no deep meaning in Japan Noise Rock, it doesn't take much craft, and it's certainly not what people would call beautiful to listen to.
But it can still be very touching, therapeutic even.
I believe many artists want to create work that enriches people's lives and they disappear from society (or the art world) in order to limit their exposure to pompous rambling.
There are probably a lot of people here who like Recreational Math: stuff like finding pairs of Amicable numbers. This seems to me like it's only beautiful or meaningful in a similar way to contemporary art, but it's still intrinsically valuable, even though I don't understand most of it.
As another example, if you look through the Guinness Book of World Records, you'll find tons of stuff that isn't "good" but still seems valuable. It's not "good" to have five-foot long fingernails, but I'm still glad that the world has someone in it who does, because it makes it a more varied and interesting place to live.
Art can certainly be ugly, produced entirely without technical skill and be labelled 'bad'. It's still art. Value doesn't come from only positive attributes.
Likewise it can have no meaning, or none intended, or none available to you. It's still art.
We often try and apply objective measurability towards the 'artness' of a thing, which takes us in self-referential circles of decreasing usefulness. When instead we need to let go and accept subjective immeasurability. The only number that can be put on art is its sale value which most will agree is a highly misleading metric by which to understand art's value.
By whose authority can they be labelled as true?
> If art is neither beautiful nor crafted or good in any way, and also has no meaning, it can be argued that it also has no intrinsic value.
There is no such thing as intrinsic value in anything, least of all art.
> In that case it is merely an object that is meant to inspire pompous rambling, but so can any object if put on display for the right observers, like in an art exhibit.
Really any object? Or would some objects work better than others? Why? Does it depend on the audience?
These are actually exactly the questions that postmodern art explores.
It's like a placebo effect. (And like the placebo effect, it's not necessarily bad.)
It's like someone only liking McDonalds who can't understand why people would ever eat Chinese food. Or someone liking pop who can't understand why someone will listen to jazz or classical.
It's a cultural thing, and it's limiting themselves, even though nominally they don't appear to / have to suffer anything for this self-limiting (it's a free country, anybody can like whatever they want, but it's still some kind of loss).
That is, if you speak about all kinds of modern art, from 1900 to 2020 say. Because sure, there are lots of crap within it, and easy for-the-money, by-the-book boring works, but also lots of wonderful works in there, so to dismiss it all is problematic.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
But if you invest some time into studying art, its history and what has been done in the past centuries as an ever increasing share of mankind's time has been freed from satisfying basic needs, you soon realize that "it's all been done before". Doing anything that hasn't alreadly been done, and done better, by some prodigy 200 years ago, is almost impossible. At least if you work in a traditional medium like paint or theater.
So if you're an artist who wants to do something truly original, you can either switch to a technologically new medium (and realize that quite often you're still riffing off something existing), or you can start to question the "needs to be realistic, pretty or otherwise enjoyable" requirements.
So what modern and postmodern art does is, very roughly, to drop those requirements and instead ask questions like "what other crazy things can we do with this medium?" or "What other emotions can we provoke in the audience, how and why?"
As the audience, it's best approached like a puzzle.